Allowing students to write arrear exams is a concession, cannot be claimed as a right, Madras HC

Justice S Vaidyanathan of the Madras High Court recently observed that permitting students to write arrears examinations is only a concession given by university on humanitarian grounds, and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right..The observation was made while dismissing a plea made by a former engineering student who had hoped of writing three papers he was yet to clear in an upcoming slot next August. This was despite the University regulations that rendered him ineligible to appear for the same..In 2017, the Anna University had announced a one-time concession to allow students yet to clear arrears to appear for examinations in February and August 2018. This was applicable for students who had crossed the time limit prescribed in the University Regulations to pass all papers as well..The petitioner’s grievance lay in the fact that this notification was only applicable to students who had joined the college after the year 2000. On the other hand, the petitioner had joined in the college in 1994 and completed his course in 1998..However, he is yet to clear three papers to be eligible to receive his degree. Furthermore, as per the University regulations, as a part-time student, the petitioner was supposed to clear his exams for all seven semesters within six years..Owing to this reason, he was not allowed to benefit from the 2017 notification, even though he had made a request for the same..The College also informed the Court that the petitioner had been given several second chances before, as a result of which he was permitted to write his exams for a period of nine years. This was well beyond the prescribed maximum of six years. In addition, the Court also noted that he had not properly challenged the 2017 notification itself..Given these observations, the Court ruled against relaxing the rules to allow the petitioner to re-write his exams again. It was also noted that allowing the petitioner’s plea would likely end up opening the floodgates for petitions from similarly placed students. As recorded in the order,.“When the petitioner had the benefit in 2006 and he has not benefited himself of the same, and that the petitioner has not challenged the Notification of the year 2017, even assuming that it is challenged, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition, and if the petitioner’s case is accepted, then those students who have joined even prior to 1994, will knock at the doors of this Court and that they will not get a finality.”.The College also argued that the Court has very limited jurisdiction to traverse beyond the regulations laid down by the college in such matters. Reliance in this regard was placed in cases such as the Karnataka High Court finding in Sri Amrith Raj v. Registrar, Visveswaraiah Technological University and the Supreme Court judgments in Visveswaraiah Technological University and another v Krishnendu Halder and others and All India Council for Technical Education v Surinder Kumar Dhavan and others.Notably, the Court has emphasised that arrear examinations are only in the nature of a concession given by the University on humanitarian grounds..“Permitting students to take up the arrear examinations is only a concession and it is given by the University on humanitarian grounds. … .The concession/benefit cannot be demanded as a matter of right by a student while taking up the arrear examinations in clearing the course itself.”.The Court also sounded a cautionary note against constantly allowing students to appear for arrears. Justice Vaidyanathan remarked,.“When the student is not able to clear the arrears, except on genuine grounds, the respondents should not issue these kinds of Notifications, as it will always create unrest among the students and the University will always be litigating over the matters in Courts instead of the teachers taking classes for the students.”.On these grounds, the case was dismissed, holding that,.“…the petitioner will not have a locus-standi to demand as a matter of right that he should be permitted to take up the arrear examinations. The petitioner’s contentions cannot be accepted and if it is accepted, it would amount to opening the Pandora’s box.”.Read the Order: